John_Havok

I don't know for sure, but logically I think there would only be a marginal adjustment if Vernon gets picked up, since the Yankees and Angels are still paying the same amount of his salary for 2014, except the Yankees get the league minimum picked up by the team who signs him.

One thing I've noticed, in previous years and even earlier this year, as soon as the team went down by 10, you could just them shut down, no push back. Now, they get down 10, they push back, tighten up the D and get back in the game.

True, but I think the major problem is deciding what is "materially detrimental or materially prejudicial to the best interests of Baseball including, but not limited to, engaging in conduct in violation of federal, state or local law." That's an incredibly broad statement. Why is A-Rod obstructing the gathering of evidence against himself considered so much worse than DWI or Domestic abuse?

Fangraphs article from Wendy Thurm: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/arbitrators-decision-on-rodriguez-suspension-leaves-bad-taste/

Might I also request this for the FC league. You are a gentleman and a scholar.

Yeah I red the JDA pretty thoroughly yesterday, and there is language in there to suspend for possession or selling of PED's or other drugs as well. But they also provide actual suspension length numbers. The reason it's up to 162 games is under the Basic Agreement, where allegedly a-rod tried to obstruct their investigation. Under the Basic Agreement ARTICLE XII—Discipline "B. Conduct Detrimental or Prejudicial to Baseball Players may be disciplined for just cause for conduct that is materially detrimental or materially prejudicial to the best interests of Baseball including, but not limited to, engaging in conduct in violation of federal, state or local law. The Commissioner and a Club shall not discipline a Player for the same act or conduct under this provision. In cases of this type, a Club may only discipline a Player, or take other adverse action against him, when the Commissioner defers the disciplinary decision to the Club." I looked through pretty thoroughly though, and nowhere in the Basic agreement does is say how long or short suspensions could be if someone is suspended under this clause. It's incredibly broad, basically just means if the Commissioner thinks a player has done something bad, he can suspend them as long as the team has not taken any action.

and today's winner for the "Best Dirty Quote Taken Completely Out of Context" goes to connorp!

Oh and A-Rod can still go to spring training since he's still under contract. Imagine the circus that's going to be.

From all the opinions from the legal beagle's the mlb network on Sirius has run through today, they think A-Rod doesn;t have a snowball's chance in hell of getting his case heard in federal court. One lawyer described it as "I, a 55 year old fat, out of shape lawyer who's never played baseball has a better chance of getting a hit of Clayton Kershaw." They say that federal court rarely gets involved with this kind of collectively bargained arbitration decisions, unless the person can prove their due process was violated , or there is massive evidence of bias or corruption in the decision.

I'm between group 2 and 3. I realize I don't know the facts, but I know enough to know that the two parties who are clear winners are the Yankees and Selig's ego. This makes me feel there is probably way more to this story than a simple drug and obstruction offense when there's so much for the Yankees to to gain to have Arod go away and not have to pay him the contract they signed him to, even if it is just for 1 year. This alone would save them over 50 million dollars once you take the savings of his contract and the penalties for being over the luxury tax. Don't tell me they don't have a vested interest. Follow the money

The legal guys were saying that if federal court agrees to hear the case, A-rod could get the suspension to be wiped out while the case is being heard, allowing him to okay. The real question is whether or not federal court agrees to hear the case

In a statement released Saturday morning, before MLB announced the decision by an independent arbitrator, Rodriguez said, "I will take this fight to federal court." The statement read, in part, "This is one man's decision, that was not put before a fair and impartial jury, does not involve me having failed a single drug test, is at odds with the facts and is inconsistent with the terms of the Joint Drug Agreement and the Basic Agreement and relies on testimony and documents that would never have been allowed in any court in the United States…" The statement also said, "This injustice is MLB's first step toward abolishing guaranteed contracts in the 2016 bargaining round, instituting lifetime bans for single violations of drug policy, and further insulating its corrupt investigative program from any variety defense by accused players."

This has been the topic on mlb radio on Sirius since the story broke for obvious reasons, they've already had multiple legal sources checked since A-rod is saying he will take the case to federal court. According to federal arbitration laws, when there's a third party arbitration process that both parties have agreed to, that decision is only reviewable for pretty serious reasons, like the arbitrator being suspected or proven of being corrupted by one side. That's only one of the list of reasons, but it sounded to me like the legal guys thought Arod would try yo challenge it based on providing a decision that isn't within the scope of his ability, basically saying there's no basis for a 162 games suspension in the joint drug or mlbpa basic agreement

Lavelle Neal - President of the BBWAA said on PTS that Le Batard did not receive money for his Deadspin vote, his punishment was just for allowing someone else to determine his vote - says Le Batard never voiced his opinions internally to the BBWAA about how he felt about the process - wished he would have to try and convince people that the BBWAA should be moving in a certain direction about the voting process - feels conflicted about how to deal with PED players, but writers should be able to use whatever criteria they want to judge a player, expects more dialogue within the BBWAA about it - said he himself wanted to vote for more than 10 players this year - there is a committee in place to study the 10 player limit and he expects/would not be surprised it will be adjusted in the future - admitted there needs to be more dialogue within the BBWAA between members, especially around voting time. Bobcat had suggested that they try to get as many BBWAA members in one room to have real discussion about that year's eligible players, so there could be more information shared from writer to writer - was disappointed in the types of ballots that would vote for Jack Morris and nobody else. Did say that the HOF ballot is not to be used as a form of protest but there would be no action taken against that writer.

For hitters: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/hitters-no-longer-peak-only-decline/

Dammit connorp, you've come a very long way since you first started posting at the old forum. Kudos for being open-minded and willing to explore new ways of looking at baseball.

It's already starting with the dodgers and cubs both putting it out there that they won't be outbid.

Maybe AA would, maybe he wouldn't, but he could if he so chose, that's the point, and if he did, the Jays would likely be further ahead in the win column by using Hutch, trading Happ and then dealing for a 2b upgrade or trying to sign a guy like Drew. I agree with another poster who brought up the point that 5 million shouldn't be stopping the Jays from upgrading 2b on it's own, but I think it's fairly safe to say that AA is actually prepared to go with Goins

I see what you're saying, but I don't think there's a GM in baseball that would buy that kind of rumour coming from The Jays when AA hasn't signed any free agent pitcher to a major league deal in the past 6 off seasons, and has a policy of not going over 5 years, even though AA himself has tried to project recently that he's willing to go over that for the right player. Point being, I don't think anyone would believe it coming from AA, knowing his track record

Wait, are you just saying that AA should publicly say he's willing to offer 15 years and 375 million, but not actually offer it to the player, just in the hopes that some other GM would actually believe it's real and think they have to pay more?

I agree Happ's contract is not bad, but Hutchison in Happ's spot + 4.5 million to help upgrade 2b or another position would be a better scenario IMO.

If any GM offers a contract like this to a pitcher, they should fired on the spot. And if any GM who had stated they wouldn't be outbid saw someone else offer this contract they should pick up the phone and laugh in his face for being the biggest idiot GM in baseball history.

For me, it's not so much hate for Happ, but I hate what he represents; AA falling in love with a player who he couldn't get in trade the first time he tried, continuing to have a hard-on for him a few years later even though it was obvious that he wasn't the quality SP AA thought could be, but not altering his opinion of the player and give up assets for him in trade when he could have signed a similar or better pitcher in free agency for similar dollars without giving up the assets.

In general, Chop off head, drain blood, pluck feathers, remove innards, spice, roast, eat, poop.

Well to start, you wouldn't skin a turkey...